*kummézzā-

The only attestation of this lexeme belongs to an inscription from Tabal and dates to the second half of the 8^th century BCE.

[AH.B.]

nom. sg. c.

/kummazzas/

ku-ma-za-sa

KAYSERİ, §17 (Tabal)

The semantic interpretation of this lexeme has to be approached with caution, because the sole attestation of the word occurs in a badly damaged context and it is, together with three enclitics attached to it, the only part of its clause to have survived; its interpretation is therefore difficult. There are two competing interpretations that have been put forward for this lexeme. The first one has been proposed by Yakubovich 2013b:164f. who builds on Starke’s (Starke 1990a:63) view that /kummazza-/ is indeed an adjective, but suggests that it is in fact the superlative and compares it to the adjective /ura(/i)-/ ‘great’ and its related form /urazza-/ (Yakubovich 2013b:160). The second one has been put forward by Sasseville 2014-2015a:108, who follows Hajnal 2003a:193, Rieken 2005b:68, and Giusfredi 2010b:119f., and sees /kummazza-/ as a noun, linking it to Lycian kumaza- ‘the one sacrificing, priest’, an agent noun in /-azza-/. From a semantic point of view, both interpretations are possible for /kummazza-/. If other, similar forms such as /urazza-/ are considered, Yakubovich’s analysis seems a better fit for many contexts, yet by no means all.

[AH.B.]

While the formation is undoubtedly based on an adjective /kumma-/ ‘pure; sacred’ (as such unattested in HLuw., but found in CLuw.), there has been some debate on what follows after, cf. the section on meaning above. Two suggestions have been put forward, with Yakubovich 2013b:160 seeing /-zza-/ as an adjectival suffix forming superlatives and Sasseville 2014-2015a:108 regarding /-azza-/ as an agent noun forming suffix. From a morphophonological point of view, Sasseville’s analysis appears to account more fully for the behaviour of the /-azza-/ formations, because his view rests on the fact that formations in /-azza-/ do not appear to be subject to i-mutation, the present lexeme being a case in point with its nom. sg. c. in /-as/ instead of a mutated /-is/. The adjective assumed by Yakubovich would be expected to show i-mutation like all adjectives, yet no /-zza-/ formation ever does in the Luwian corpora.

[AH.B.]

This lexeme is well attested in grave inscriptions of various regions of Lycia of the 5^th and 4^th BCE and also in the Letoon trilingual inscription dated to 337 BCE.

[D.S.]

nom. sg.	kumaza	TL 49 (Xanthos)
		TL 111.1 (Limyra)
		N 322.2 (Pinara)
acc. sg.	kumazã	TL 26.20 (Tlos)
	kumazu	N 320.9 (Xanthos)
dat. sg.	kumazi	N 320.36 (Xanthos)
abl./instr.	kumazaḍi	TL 26.11 (Tlos)

In the trilingual inscription, the Lycian agent noun kumaza- is rendered by Greek ἱερεύς ‘the one in charge of sacrifices, priest’ (Laroche 1979c:65, 98, 109, Neumann 2007a:175f. with further literature, DLL:33). The substantive kumaza- is often attested in opposition to personal names, e.g. ‘Padrñma, the priest’ (TL 49), Erzesinube, the priest of (the god) Trzzuba’ (TL 111.1).

[D.S.]